[quote=Blogstar]I got serious on the phone with one of the attorney I am interviewing now. Ask him directly about quiet title. He tried to get away with just saying it’s standard.
I said some people think ‘churning’ people’s troubles is standard too. I asked him why it should be standard if I have good title. And he said he’d have to look at that. SO yeah, probably big sales job by all these guys and gals. The quiet title is a fixed cost thing so even if the guy doesn’t fight title claims, and settles quickly, or doesn’t even answer the claim and I win by default, they can take some additional money from me.
Going for another free consultation early next week with this same attorney and will get more into the possibility of a strong letter, served, or delivered verified contents.
I feel like we are in a pretty good place with this. . . [/quote]
Russ, in order to your legal counsel to determine if you need to file a “quiet title” action, they have to take time to examine the condition of your title (and possibly any other “titles” which are germaine to your case). It is very possible that there ARE defect(s) in your title which you are not aware of.
If this attorney which you are going to meet with is willing to file a quiet title action for you for a fixed cost and that fixed cost INCLUDES a (likely) evidentiary hearing, then you need to seriously consider going that route, imho. Especially if he writes and sends the certified letter and it doesn’t do any good.
Remember that as of January 2012, one cannot take an automatic default in CA in a quiet title action.
